Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof!!!! Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess.....
I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. Any help is greatly appreciated. N. On 4/7/13, Heiko Zinke <ma...@rabuju.com> wrote: > > > On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Jarry wrote: >> >>> On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>> STOP SPREADING THIS FUD >>>> >>>>> It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people >>>>> who >>>>> blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news >>>>> announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at >>>>> freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and >>>>> started >>>>> making shit up in their heads. >>>> >>>> Steady on, old chap! By "it" I was meaning the general >>>> inconvenience >>>> all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not >>>> everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't >>>> have >>>> to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did. >>> >>> The problem is, news item is not correct! I followed it >>> and yet finished with server having old network name (eth0). >>> Problem was the point 4. in news item, which is not quite clear: >>> >>> ----- >>> 4. predictable network interface names: >>> If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file >>> or a symlink to /dev/null, the new names will be disabled and >>> the kernel will do all the interface naming... >>> ----- >>> >>> Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, >>> nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, >>> which basically did the same thing as empty file: disabled >>> new network names. Unfortunatelly, I found it just after >>> screwed reboot. But I did everything I found in news item: >>> checked and verified that file was not symlink to /dev/null >>> and that it was not empty (1667 bytes does not seem to me >>> to be empty file). >>> >>> As I wrote previously, I am pretty sure I never created this >>> file manually so it must have been created by som previous >>> udev-version. So I finished up with similar problem as OP: >>> after rebooting I did not find interface I expected. The >>> only difference is I expected already interface with new >>> name, and OP is probably the old one... >> >> You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines. >> > > Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass > ------ > In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d > and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most > likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages. > ------ > > So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine > :) > >>> >>> So I must add my point to complaining about news item >>> not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often... > > heiko > >